* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Agric. Sci. Digest, 26 (1) : 57 - 59, 2006 EVALUATION OF PIGEONPEA INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT MODULE IN RAINFED ECOSYSTEM G. Gajendran, M. Chandrasekaran, N. Ganapathy and S. Jebaraj All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Pigeonpea, National Pulses Research Centre, Vamban Colony, Pudukkottai - 622 303, Tamil Nadu, India ABSTRACT Experiments on evaluation of Pigeonpea Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Module in comparison with the farmers’ practice were conducted with the variety Vamban 1 for three years from 2000 - 2002. Adoption of IPM module consisting of the components viz., early sowing (June 3rd week), setting up of pheromone traps against Helicoverpa armigera @ 12/ha, installing bird perches @ 50/ha using “T” shaped poles, mechanical collection and disposal of pod borer larvae and infested parts, use of bio-rational pesticides viz., Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) 5% at 50% flowering, spraying of Ha NPV @ 500LE/ha at early pod set and need based spraying of insecticides viz., dichlorvos 0.08% against flower webber, Maruca vitrata Geyer at flowering and chlorpyriphos 0.05% at podding against pod borer complex registered reduced pod borer (14.6 - 26.6%), pod wasp (1.8 - 3.0%) and pod fly (2.4 - 4.0%) damage as against the farmers’ practice viz., late sowing (July 3rd week), dusting with lindane 1.3 D @ 25 kg/ha at flowering and podding, which registered higher pod borer (24.3 - 38.6%), pod wasp (3.5 - 7.0%) and pod fly (6.00%) damage. The grain yield (362 - 530 kg/ha) and benefit cost ratio (1.73 - 1.91) were also higher in IPM plots compared to farmers’ practice (239 - 410 kg/ha and 1.24 - 1.38 respectively). Pigeonpea is one of the major pulse crops grown in India accounting for 44 per cent of the total area under pulses and about 60 per cent of the total pulse production (Reddy et al., 2001). Insect pest damage constitutes a serious limiting factor in pulse production. More than 200 insect species have been reported feeding on pigeonpea at various stages of its growth (Lateef and Reed, 1990). Among these, several species of pod borers constitute the major pests of this crop and cause an yield loss of 28 per cent (Rangaiah and Sehgal, 1984). Pesticides are undoubtedly effective for averting pest attacks (Sharma and Patel, 1994), but the widespread and indiscriminate use of pesticides lead to resistance of pod borers to pesticides, increase in the cost of plant protection and also poisoning each and every component of the biosphere. Considering the hazardous nature of insecticides and benefit cost ratio, it is imperative to integrate various alternative strategies for the management of pigeonpea pod borers. Keeping this in view, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the pigeonpea IPM module in comparison with the farmers’ practice in rainfed ecosystem. The experiments on IPM module evaluation were conducted under the ICARAll India Co-ordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Pigeonpea at National Pulses Research Centre(NPRC), Vamban, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and at farmers’ holding in Pudukkottai District, Tamil Nadu under rainfed conditions with the following treatments. Treatment I : IPM Module • Early sowing (June 3rd week) • Setting up of pheromone traps against Helicoverpa armigera @ 12/ha. • Installing bird perches @ 50/ha using “T” shaped poles • Mechanical collection and disposal of pod borer larvae and infested parts • Use of bio-rational pesticides viz., Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) 5% at 50% flowering • Spraying of Ha NPV @ 500LE/ha at early pod set • Need based spraying of insecticides viz., 58 AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE DIGEST dichlorvos 0.08% against flower webber, complex, the incidence of H. armigera was Maruca vitrata at flowering and chlorpyriphos maximum in the experimental plots and the 0.05% at podding against pod borers complex. mean H. armigera damage was 5.8 and 11.2 per cent in IPM and farmers’ practice Treatment II : Farmers’ Practice respectively. The pod wasp and pod fly damage rd • Late sowing (July 3 week) • Dusting with Lindane 1.3 D @ 25 kg/ha was 1.8 and 2.3 per cent in IPM as against 3.5 and 6.10 in farmers’ practice, at flowering and podding. respectively. The grain yield and benefit cost The experiments were conducted at ratio was maximum in IPM plot (362 kg/ha; NPRC, Vamban (On-Station) and in farmers’ 1.91) as against farmers’ practice (239 kg/ holding (On-Farm) at Venkitakulam, ha; 1.38). The results of On - Farm trials also Pudukkottai District, Tamil Nadu. The trials showed a similar trend and the damage by pod were carried out with the variety Vamban 1 in borer complex was low in IPM plots which an larger area of 0.2 ha for each treatment recorded 26.6 per cent as against 38.6 per and unreplicated. In IPM plot the botanical/ cent in farmers’ practice plot. The maximum biocontrol/insecticidal treatments were grain yield (530 kg/ha) and benefit cost ratio imposed based on need by regular monitoring (1.73) were recorded in IPM plot compared to of the pod borer damage. 410 kg/ha and 1.24 in farmers’ practice. The Observations on pod damage by results on the effectiveness of the IPM module lepidopteran borers viz., gram pod borer are in agreement with the findings of Patel (Helicoverpa armigera Hb.), flower webber et al. (2002). The wothiness of IPM module (Maruca vitrata Geyer), blue butterfly (Lampides could be attributed to the cumulative effect of boeticus L.) and plume moth (Exelastis all the IPM components. Borkar et al. (1996) atomosa Wlsn.) were assessed from the pods reported that NSKE 5.0 per cent was effective collected from 10 randomly selected plants in against the pod fly (M. obtusa). According to each of the five microplots (20 m2 ) within a Srinivasa Rao and Dharma Reddy (2003) the treatmental plot. Seed damage by pod fly application of NSKE improved the efficacy of (Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch) and pod wasp IPM module treatment as it could control the (Tanaostigmodes cajaninae Lasalle) was also late coming borers i.e., pod fly, M. obtusa assessed from the above pods. Grain yield and plume moth, E. atomosa. In the present and the Benefit Cost ratio (B/C) were worked study also the seed damage by pod fly was less out at harvest. in the IPM plot than the farmers’ practice plot. The results of On-Station evaluation The grain yield and benefit cost ratio (B/C), of IPM module experiment during kharif, were minimum in farmers’ practice plots owing 2000-02 revealed that the damage caused by to application of the insecticide lindane1.3 D pod borer complex was low (14.6 %) in the twice without consideration of the pest load. IPM plot compared to 24.3 per cent damage This finding is clearly supported by Sarod in the farmers’ practice. Among the borer et al. (1997) and Bhagwat (1997). Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006 Table 1. Comparitive evaluation of pigeonpea S.No. Details 2. 3. 4. Pod damage (%) by Maruca vitrata Helicoverpa armigera Lampiedes boeticus Exelastis atomosa Cumulative pod borer (%) damage Pod wasp damage (%) Pod fly seed damage (%) Grain yield (kg/ha) Benefit : Cost IPM module vs Farmers’ practice On - Station trial kharif 2000-02* IPM 1. 59 Farmers’ practice 5.3 5.8 2.0 1.6 14.6 1.8 2.4 362 1.91 7.2 11.2 2.8 2.8 24.3 3.5 6.1 239 1.38 On - Farm trial kharif -2002 IPM 12.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 26.6 3.0 4.0 530 1.73 Farmers’ practice 15.0 12.0 7.0 5.0 38.6 7.0 6.0 410 1.24 * Mean value of three years. REFERENCES Bhagwat, V.R. (1997). SAT News, 20: 6-8. Borkar, S.L. et al. (1996). J. Soils Crop, 6: 146-150. Lateef, S.S. and Reed, W. (1990). In: Insect Pests of Tropical Legumes (Singh, S.R. Ed.). John Wiley, U.K. Patel, M.G. et al. (2002). Indian J. Ent., 64: 39-43. Rangaiah, P.H. and Sehgal, V.K. (1984). Indian J. Pl. Prot., 12: 127-30. Reddy, C.N. et al. (2001). Indian J. Ent., 63: 215-220. Sarode, S.V. et al. (1997). PKV Res. J., 21: 227-229. Sharma, U.D. and Patel, R.K. (1994). J. Appl. Zool. Res., 5(1): 46-47. Srinivasa Rao, M. and Dharma Reddy, K. (2003). Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 11(1): 26-30.